Raymond Berthiaume v. David T. Smith, 875 F.3d 1354

Plaintiff Raymond Berthiaume (gay) sued Lt. David T. Smith and the City of Key West under 42 U.S.C. §§1983/1988 and Florida law alleging excessive force, false arrest/imprisonment, battery, and malicious prosecution arising from an October 2013 arrest.
Incident occurred after Fantasy Fest: Berthiaume chased his ex-partner Nelson Jimenez (who took car keys); police intervened and Smith pushed Berthiaume, who fell and suffered fractures requiring surgery.
Smith arrested Berthiaume for domestic battery despite Jimenez initially declining to press charges; Smith characterized the incident as a domestic dispute between former partners.
After a three-day trial a jury returned a verdict for defendants; district court denied Berthiaume’s motion for a new trial.
Berthiaume argued the trial court abused its discretion by refusing his proposed voir dire question: “Do you harbor any biases or prejudices against persons who are gay or homosexual?”
The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded for a new trial, concluding the district court erred by not asking about sexual-orientation bias given the case facts and pretrial notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to ask a specific voir dire question about bias against gay persons	Berthiaume: case centered on alleged domestic dispute between former same-sex partners; specific questioning was necessary to discover latent bias and secure an impartial jury	Defendants: general impartiality questions sufficed; no need for specific sexual-orientation inquiry	Court: Abuse of discretion to refuse specific question here because sexual orientation was "inextricably bound up" with central issues and pretrial notice made targeted questioning necessary; reversal and remand for new trial

United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807 (11th Cir. 2011) (voir dire left to trial court but must provide reasonable assurance prejudice will be discovered)
United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005) (specific questioning required where juror prejudices are reasonably suspected)
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) (trial courts must inquire about jurors’ views on central, potentially biased issues)
Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973) (under certain circumstances courts must inquire about racial bias)
Jordan v. Lippman, 763 F.2d 1265 (11th Cir. 1985) (pre-trial publicity may require targeted voir dire)
Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (1981) (requirement to inquire depends on whether prejudice is "inextricably bound up" with trial conduct)
Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589 (1976) (specific questioning not required where circumstances do not suggest significant likelihood prejudice will infect the trial)